§ 10. Mr. Goldingasked the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the number of days lost in 1972 due to industrial disputes compared with 1964, 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969 and 1970, respectively.
§ 22. Mr. John D. Grantasked the Secretary of State for Employment how many working days have been lost so far in 1972 due to industrial disputes; and how many were lost in the comparable periods during 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970 and 1971.
§ Mr. Chichester-ClarkSome 22,202,000 days were lost in the first nine months of this year. As the rest of the reply consists of a table of figures I will, with permission, circulate this in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
§ Mr. GoldingIs the hon. Gentleman aware that the increase in the number of strikes, which the document will reveal, has come about directly because of Government policies? Will he now take steps to prevent further confrontations with workers in the public sector when they are pursuing their legitimate demands? More importantly, will the hon. Gentleman now take immediate and urgent steps to bring about the repeal of the provocative Industrial Relations Act?
§ Mr. Chichester-ClarkAs nearly two-thirds of the figures which I have given come from the miners' strike and the building workers' strike I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that it is absolute party political claptrap, of which the country is thoroughly tired, to suggest that this has anything to do with the Industrial Relations Act.
§ Mr. GrantIs not the hon. Gentleman ashamed of these appalling figures? Does he not realise that they threaten to take us to the top of the international league table for working days lost through strikes this year? That is the apparent fact. Does the hon. Gentleman not realise, too, that these strikes are the direct result of his Government's abject failure in industrial relations policy?
§ Mr. Chichester-ClarkFor the reasons that I have given I do not for a minute accept the hon. Gentleman's statement. The number of days lost through strikes has increased in almost every industrial country, and the record for the number of stoppages is considerably more favourable than it was under the Labour Government.
§ Mr. Bruce-GardyneWould not my hon. Friend agree that there is another phenomenon about these figures, namely, that the length of strikes has appreciably 808 increased since the passage of the 1966 Ministry of Social Security Act? Will he examine the correlation between the provisions of that Act, which provide for the payment of supplementary benefit as for right to strikers and their dependants, and the increasing length of strikes, bearing in mind that there was no evidence of hardship in industrial disputes before the passage of that Act?
§ Mr. Chichester-ClarkMy hon. Friend obviously does his research very carefully, and I shall certainly see that further research is done into the matter. I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
§ Mr. PrenticeThe Minister of State mentioned the international comparison. Will he confirm that the figures produced in his Department's gazette show that this country was among those having the lowest incidence of industrial disputes for many years, but that in the last two years we have entered the top part of the league and have one of the worst records among industrial countries?
As for the effect of the Industrial Relations Act, is it not purely a matter of commonsense that a confrontation attitude which accompanied the passage of the Bill through the House was one of the main causes of the worsening of industrial relations, and that it is not sufficient to talk of what has happened since the Act took effect?
In view of the failure of the Government in this matter, is it not amazing that there is no mention in the Gracious Speech of any amendment of the Industrial Relations Act, or even of any study of the working of the Act? How many more times do we have to go through the chaos of last summer before the Government learn their lessons and come to their senses in this matter?
§ Mr. Chichester-ClarkThe position of the Act has been made clear by the Prime Minister and by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. As the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned them, perhaps I may tell him that there were 1,795 stoppages in the first nine months of this year, and that the figure for 1971 was much the same. I am talking about stoppages, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred.
§ Mr. Chichester-ClarkThe hon. Gentleman must learn to take it as well as give it. I propose to give the House the figures. In the first nine months of this year there were 1,795 stoppages, compared with 2,248 in the same period in 1969, when hon. Gentlemen opposite were in charge of industrial relations-or perhaps I should say when industrial relations were in charge of them.
Following is the information:
STOPPAGES OF WORK DUE TO INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES: UNITED KINGDOM Working days lost in all stoppages in progress in period January-September, 1964 1,890,000 January-September, 1965 2,511,000 January-September, 1966 2,043,000 January-September, 1967 1,751,000 January-September, 1968 3,907,000 January-September, 1969 4,064,000 January-September, 1970 7,411,000 January-September, 1971 12,247,000